54 replies to this topic

[EntropyModel]

You ever notice how these things happen at places where guns are prohibited?

So more guns in school is the answer? perhaps state provided guns to students so we avoid economic inequality in acess to weaponary? This is the kind of country you want to live in is it?

Did you notice these regular gun massacres only happens in countries that have widespread access to guns?

In any case, a rare, random event is no reason to limit access to guns. home intrusions, armed robberies and attempted rapes happen all the time and often they are thwarted by citizens with guns. Twice in our town in the past month, in fact.

That's not what crime statistics show. It would show up as reduced rates of rape, home intrusion and armed robberies in USA versus countries without guns, but, infact the rates are higher for those crimes in USA as well, what is your explaination for that ?

More guns = less crime.
http://www.davekopel...un-Violence.htm

The only valid scientific comparison is between countries with/without guns, as guns are the dependent variable. This article is more non-scientific nonsense, people quoting statistics with no understanding of them, luckily for them, most readers don't understand them either.

To disprove the statistical correlation shown between guns and crime, the gun lobby need to explain the country differential with valid statistical arguments. The one that is often thrown out there is the USA population size is higher and that maybe causal. But, infact, anyone who's actually studied crime knows its population density that matters not size, and English cities have the highest density in the world yet one of the lowest gun death rates, so that argument is invalid.

Lastly, as regards the generalized arguments that 'well, other things can kill', I guess the theory is if you take guns away people will start killing each other with whatever.

That is easily disproven as false, as again the crime statistics country comparison shows. If that were the case, other countries would show high homicide rate's via all these other 'weapons', but they don't.

The only other valid explaination so far presented is there is something unique about Americans in comparison to other cultures, and so American would act differently, take their guns away and Molotov cocktails murder rate will go ballistic (unlike any other country)...could be, but if so that means the population itself is homicidal, and therefore surely control of deadly weapons would be even more a priority?

Mark.

Edited by entropy, 23 April 2007 - 05:03 PM.

[colours]

Look , the guy was NUTS !! . He should have been committed years ago instead of being doped up and sent back into the general population . Maineman understands this and states the case very well in his thread. It's worth re-reading. Also , let's add some perspective . Approximately 1700 students die every year on U.S. college campuses from alcohol related accidents . There are few headlines and no memorials to them . It is all so sad and I see no viable solutions .

[TechSkeptic]

You can't commit anyone involuntarily for what they theoretically *MIGHT* do. Whether mentally ill or not, people are still entitled to the presumption of innocence in this country last time I heard. And I agree, death from alcohol-related incidents is very tragic. Does that mean we lock people who show a pre-disposition that they might someday drive drunk?

Edited by TechSkeptic, 23 April 2007 - 05:50 PM.

[TechSkeptic]

Alcohol is actually a very good analogy here, so expanding on that... we do not try to lock up alcoholics nor do we try to make alcohol illegal. Rather we treat alcoholism as the disease that it is and try to mitigate its effects through awareness programs (in schools, etc.) and treatment of those affected (which is voluntary if they have not committed a crime). I would advocate the same approach for these kinds of mental disturbances.

Edited by TechSkeptic, 23 April 2007 - 06:21 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

You ever notice how these things happen at places where guns are prohibited?

So more guns in school is the answer? perhaps state provided guns to students so we avoid economic inequality in acess to weaponary? This is the kind of country you want to live in is it?

Did you notice these regular gun massacres only happens in countries that have widespread access to guns?

Did you ever notice that we are the second freest country in the world? "Regular gun massacres" are anything but. They are rare. Home invasions are quite low where citizens arm themselves.

In any case, a rare, random event is no reason to limit access to guns. home intrusions, armed robberies and attempted rapes happen all the time and often they are thwarted by citizens with guns. Twice in our town in the past month, in fact.

That's not what crime statistics show. It would show up as reduced rates of rape, home intrusion and armed robberies in USA versus countries without guns, but, infact the rates are higher for those crimes in USA as well, what is your explaination for that ?

Not enough citizens arm themselves and have concealed carry. Lots of criminals do and have reason to. Our drug war is to thank for that. But note that you cannot compare countries' crime rates very effectively without looking at demographics and reporting. It's a pretty complex bit of calculus. But in point of fact, states and municipalities that allow concealed carry in the US have lower rates of violent crime.

If you wanted to trim the crime rate even more, legalize drugs.

More guns = less crime.
http://www.davekopel...un-Violence.htm

The only valid scientific comparison is between countries with/without guns, as guns are the dependent variable. This article is more non-scientific nonsense, people quoting statistics with no understanding of them, luckily for them, most readers don't understand them either.

To disprove the statistical correlation shown between guns and crime, the gun lobby need to explain the country differential with valid statistical arguments. The one that is often thrown out there is the USA population size is higher and that maybe causal. But, infact, anyone who's actually studied crime knows its population density that matters not size, and English cities have the highest density in the world yet one of the lowest gun death rates, so that argument is invalid.

It's intellectually dishonest to ignore culture, demographics (the single largest driver of crime rates, I'm told), economic, and legal frameworks when attempting to draw any conclusions regarding the gun/violence relationship. You'll note that *I* avoided the Switzerland argument.

Lastly, as regards the generalized arguments that 'well, other things can kill', I guess the theory is if you take guns away people will start killing each other with whatever.

That is easily disproven as false, as again the crime statistics country comparison shows. If that were the case, other countries would show high homicide rate's via all these other 'weapons', but they don't.

That's silly. The point is that I and many other rights respecting citizens want to have guns to stop crimes from being committed against us or others. The only reason one brings up the argument of other things kill is that a nut job can do crazy things and the lack of guns won't stop him, and further makes it EASIER for him to do those crazy things, not harder. If you want to ignore this type of thing, we can treat it like the crazy rare anomaly that it is.

The point is that guns ARE used regularly to prevent crimes. Often. They have a deterrent effect. Over here, in NKY, we have had concealed carry for some time. Our violent crime rate is relatively low (still too high, though) and fairly stable. 3 miles away, in Ohio, the murder rate is high and climbing. Ohio has until recently, had the most restrictive (and unconstitutionally vague) approach to concealed carry in the region. Now, THERE's an interesting comparison. Very close demographics, close geography, and different violent crime rates. What's the difference? Concealed carry. Hmmm... Granted, both would be lower still with out all that money that goes to drug thugs.

The only other valid explanation so far presented is there is something unique about Americans in comparison to other cultures, and so American would act differently, take their guns away and Molotov cocktails murder rate will go ballistic (unlike any other country)...could be, but if so that means the population itself is homicidal, and therefore surely control of deadly weapons would be even more a priority?
Mark.

Here's the thing. We shouldn't be talking about fine tuning the social engineering and running fine calculus on the why's and wherefores of violence. We ARE culturally different from other countries. We're also legally different. We're also FREER. This is because we respect objective individual rights. This is our greatest difference and one that has rewarded us with fabulous wealth and frankly happiness.

To suddenly ignore the most fundamental right--that of self defense, it is simply immoral and contrary to every basic principle that makes this country what it is.

Mark

[TechSkeptic]

I have what I would consider a middle-ground position on gun control, and I don't really care to debate it, but find myself getting drawn in anyway. What still bothers me about the pro gun ownership position is the kid (or untrained adult) who accidentally kills his friend or relative with his personal gun. If guns are going to be legal (and I admit it would be very difficult to turn back the clock in this country due to the cultural history that was pointed out), rigorous safety training is an absolute *MUST* as well as thorough background checks and sufficient waiting periods for the checks and the training programs to be completed in more than just a cursory fashion. Especially for concealed carry. Personally, I would never own one. I'd be too scared of a child getting hold of it, or someone turning it against me. Though I say this as someone with the luxury of living in a relatively safe area. I'm not sure I'd feel the same way if I lived in an environment where I felt threatened.

Edited by TechSkeptic, 23 April 2007 - 06:56 PM.

[maineman]

Perspective: There are 300 million people here in the USA. There are around 2 1/2 million deaths annually. Number 1 on the list remains heart disease, with the incidence declining every year. 11th on the list is suicide. Many, in fact most, suicides occur from middle aged to older males, usually by gun. Homicide as a cause of death doesn't even show up on the top 15 causes of death. So, our "rotten" American culture/diet with "trans fats" and fast foods does not translate into violence or insanity, at least statistically. Of course statistics is just science (you know how foolish that is... ) The point? Its amazing how healthy as a nation we are, mentally and physically. In spite of 300 million people pounding away at our daily lives, we do pretty well. Mostly we get along. Most of us are living longer, and being pretty darn friendly. Gun control? Guns kill people. They kill kids. They are really, really dangerous. The odds are good that if there are guns around people will get hurt. Glocks? Automatic weapons? Pistols? I never understood.... mm

[EntropyModel]

You ever notice how these things happen at places where guns are prohibited?

So more guns in school is the answer? perhaps state provided guns to students so we avoid economic inequality in acess to weaponary? This is the kind of country you want to live in is it?
Did you notice these regular gun massacres only happens in countries that have widespread access to guns?

Did you ever notice that we are the second freest country in the world? "Regular gun massacres" are anything but. They are rare. Home invasions are quite low where citizens arm themselves.

The rareness wasn't the issue of course, but even if it were terrorism is rare, its only happened once on USA soil but that seemed to spark a desire to prevent it further, and only a few thousand people died which is nothing in comparison to the 10'000's killed each year from guns, lets alone the 100'000's injured from guns which is conviently ignored.

The actual issue at hand is does widespread access to guns contribute to massacres, and more broadly violent crime, and unless you can explain this contry differential it has to be assumed it does.

In any case, a rare, random event is no reason to limit access to guns. home intrusions, armed robberies and attempted rapes happen all the time and often they are thwarted by citizens with guns. Twice in our town in the past month, in fact.

That's not what crime statistics show. It would show up as reduced rates of rape, home intrusion and armed robberies in USA versus countries without guns, but, infact the rates are higher for those crimes in USA as well, what is your explaination for that ?

Not enough citizens arm themselves and have concealed carry. Lots of criminals do and have reason to. Our drug war is to thank for that. But note that you cannot compare countries' crime rates very effectively without looking at demographics and reporting. It's a pretty complex bit of calculus. But in point of fact, states and municipalities that allow concealed carry in the US have lower rates of violent crime.

If you wanted to trim the crime rate even more, legalize drugs.

There are no special demographic factor beteween USA versus the UK, France, Germany that invalidate this - all have ethnic mixes with problems, similar age structures and economic strate. As for reporting, huge problems there, but applies to all and doesn't explain the HUGE country differential.

If the difference were small, of course the problem you mention would matter, but they don't explain the order of magnitude difference in rates.

More guns = less crime.
http://www.davekopel...un-Violence.htm

The only valid scientific comparison is between countries with/without guns, as guns are the dependent variable. This article is more non-scientific nonsense, people quoting statistics with no understanding of them, luckily for them, most readers don't understand them either.

To disprove the statistical correlation shown between guns and crime, the gun lobby need to explain the country differential with valid statistical arguments. The one that is often thrown out there is the USA population size is higher and that maybe causal. But, infact, anyone who's actually studied crime knows its population density that matters not size, and English cities have the highest density in the world yet one of the lowest gun death rates, so that argument is invalid.

It's intellectually dishonest to ignore culture, demographics (the single largest driver of crime rates, I'm told), economic, and legal frameworks when attempting to draw any conclusions regarding the gun/violence relationship. You'll note that *I* avoided the Switzerland argument.

Intellectually dishonest eh :LOL , such personal attacks reveal the weakness of your arguement , if not, why not present logic and facts.

People tell people alot of things, I fail to see the relevance of what someone told you?
The comparison is valid because whilst correlations exist which demographics, it isn't on the order of magnitude of the differential in rates.

It is the same statistical mistake as saying we can't compare disease rate's of USA to Africa with clean water supply as the 'dependent variable', because they are so different economically, socially, demographics - those correlative effect are very small in magntidue in comparison, so we are able to confidently conclude clean water is causal, just as we can with guns here.

Lastly, as regards the generalized arguments that 'well, other things can kill', I guess the theory is if you take guns away people will start killing each other with whatever.

That is easily disproven as false, as again the crime statistics country comparison shows. If that were the case, other countries would show high homicide rate's via all these other 'weapons', but they don't.

oex -

That's silly. The point is that I and many other rights respecting citizens want to have guns to stop crimes from being committed against us or others. The only reason one brings up the argument of other things kill is that a nut job can do crazy things and the lack of guns won't stop him, and further makes it EASIER for him to do those crazy things, not harder. If you want to ignore this type of thing, we can treat it like the crazy rare anomaly that it is.

Well, that's the problem the pro gun argument has, because a lack of guns does appear to stop this according to statistics, and your only answer so far is that statistics can't be used. That would be convient because of what statistics clearly how, and of course then we would be just left then to make whatever assertion we like as without facts nothing can be proved nor disproved, and we can just leave everything to who has the most money and power to pressure government, and sway the public.

...post continues in other post directly below this one, I couldn't get the quotes to work alas...perhaps it ran out of quotes ...





Mark.







....continued...

The point is that guns ARE used regularly to prevent crimes. Often. They have a deterrent effect. Over here, in NKY, we have had concealed carry for some time. Our violent crime rate is relatively low (still too high, though) and fairly stable. 3 miles away, in Ohio, the murder rate is high and climbing. Ohio has until recently, had the most restrictive (and unconstitutionally vague) approach to concealed carry in the region. Now, THERE's an interesting comparison. Very close demographics, close geography, and different violent crime rates. What's the difference? Concealed carry. Hmmm... Granted, both would be lower still with out all that money that goes to drug thugs.

Assertions with no statistical backup, the pro gun arguments must be held to the same standard as mine, since you critique my statistics, you must have some of your own.

The idea of guns preventing crime I already debunked, as your attempt to ignore the country comparison statistics is not valid. But also, here is a good article debunked it within even the USA:

http://crimemagazine.com/guns.htm
"

So, rather than 2.5-million, only 82,000 citizens use a gun to defend themselves annually. Keep in mind the 17% of crimes where an armed criminal fired his gun – quite often, I'm sure, in response to a victim pulling a gun, and we have to conclude that many of the 21,000 non-fatally wounded victims were shot while either going for a gun, or while shooting it out with a robber. I would suggest that many crime victims who pull a gun during a robbery, merely spark a shootout that would not have taken place otherwise."

Also, most shooting are the result of domestic disputes, not 'defence' against 'bad guys'. People 'lose it', and if they have access to guns in that moment of loss of control they shoot someone

The only other valid explanation so far presented is there is something unique about Americans in comparison to other cultures, and so American would act differently, take their guns away and Molotov cocktails murder rate will go ballistic (unlike any other country)...could be, but if so that means the population itself is homicidal, and therefore surely control of deadly weapons would be even more a priority?
Mark.

Here's the thing. We shouldn't be talking about fine tuning the social engineering and running fine calculus on the why's and wherefores of violence. We ARE culturally different from other countries. We're also legally different. We're also FREER. This is because we respect objective individual rights. This is our greatest difference and one that has rewarded us with fabulous wealth and frankly happiness.

To suddenly ignore the most fundamental right--that of self defense, it is simply immoral and contrary to every basic principle that makes this country what it is.

Mark(OEX)

Please show me the statistics that prove the relationship between American wealth, and right to self defence with a gun, talk about a stretch. You might wan't to check some of those African nations, some of them have wide access to guns, but little wealth.

So if 'guns don't kill', why don't we give everyone a personal nuke, presumably 'nukes don't kill', how long would that theory last you think?


Mark ( the other one )

Edited by entropy, 23 April 2007 - 09:02 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

Perspective:
[snippage]
Gun control? Guns kill people. They kill kids. They are really, really dangerous. The odds are good that if there are guns around people will get hurt. Glocks? Automatic weapons? Pistols? I never understood....
mm

First, you surprise me. What EXACTLY do you mean "the odds are good"? Like one in 1MM? How does gun ownership compare with, say, swimming pool ownership?

Secondly, weapons are used generally for deterrence, piece of mind, and entertainment. The reason one might own a Glock is because one feels comfortable using one or finds it a reliable tool, and thus chooses it as one's defense weapon. That's all. More dramatic weaponry might be chosen as an insurance policy in the even of things really heading south, say thanks to a natural or political or military disaster. Or maybe just to keep government slightly afraid of the populace (as they should be).

Mark

[maineman]

Look, this is a non-argument debate. The pros will stay pro and the cons will stay con. Suffice it to say that whenever a child is killed accidentally by the parent's gun, its because there was a gun there. And a kid falling in a swimming pool is a tragedy. I choose not to own guns. mm